Categories
News

Timberlake Video Released 21 Months After Clinic Client’s Initial FOIL Request

Sag Harbor Village released redacted bodycam video of Justine Timberlake’s 2024 arrest in response to a Freedom of Information Law request by The Express News Group, publisher of Sag Harbor Express, a client of The Cornell Law School First Amendment Clinic’s Local Journalism Project.

“Police bodycam footage exists largely for public accountability — it shouldn’t be kept hidden, especially in a case like this, where there’s no legitimate reason for it to be secret.”

– Cornell Clinic Attorney Michael Linhorst

A temporary restraining order imposed by New York State County Court Judge and Acting Supreme Court Justice Joseph Farneti on March 5 had barred the release. The order prevented Sag Harbor Village, the Sag Harbor Village Police Department, and Sag Harbor Village Police Chief Robert Drake from disseminating the video footage, which had been slated for release in response to Freedom of Information Law requests.

“We’re glad to see that the Freedom of Information Law finally worked as it’s supposed to and these public records were made public,” Cornell First Amendment Clinic Local Journalism Attorney Michael Linhorst, who assisted with the FOIL appeal, said. “Police bodycam footage exists largely for public accountability — it shouldn’t be kept hidden, especially in a case like this, where there’s no legitimate reason for it to be secret.”

A redacted video was released on March 21 after attorneys for Timberlake and Sag Harbor Village reached an agreement.

Timberlake was arrested on June 18, 2024, and charged with driving while intoxicated, a misdemeanor, but pleaded guilty on September 13, 2024, in Sag Harbor Village Justice Court to a lesser charge of driving while ability impaired by alcohol, a traffic infraction.

The day after the arrest, The Express News Group filed its first Freedom of Information request for the bodycam and dashcam video footage and audio recordings related to the pursuit, investigation, and arrest of Timberlake, which was denied. Police withheld the video on the grounds that its release would interfere with a pending judicial proceeding.

A second FOIL request after the guilty plea was entered was denied on the grounds that a protective order from Sag Harbor Village Justice Court prohibited its release. The Cornell Clinic appealed the denials each time. After the village’s counsel agreed to begin releasing the footage, an attorney for Timberlake successfully argued in village court that the protective order applied to bar the footage’s release. In doing so, the village court rejected the Clinic’s argument that the protective order did not extend to the police department, which was not a party to the order, and that the order did not nullify the public’s rights under FOIL.

For more background information on the FOIL requests and the released footage, see:

21 Months Later, Timberlake Arrest Video Is Released, The Sag Harbor Express

Watch: Justin Timberlake’s June 2024 Arrest in Sag Harbor Village, The Sag Harbor Express

Court Grants Temporary Restraining Order To Block Release of Justin Timberlake Arrest Bodycam Footage, The Sag Harbor Express

Justin Timberlake’s Attorneys Go to Court Again To Block Release of Pop Star’s June 2024 Sag Harbor Arrest Video, The Sag Harbor Express

Categories
News

Cornell Clinic Visits The Wall Street Journal

Students and faculty from the Cornell Law School First Amendment Clinic visited The Wall Street Journal newsroom on March 13, where they heard from journalists and lawyers at the media organization. Investigative journalists Christopher Stewart, Joseph Palazzolo, Khadeeja Safdar and Marcelo Prince described the hard work that goes into creating impactful journalism.  Members of the Dow Jones legal team — including Jason Conti, Jacob Goldstein, Craig Linder, Ava Lubell, Michael Adelman and Hannah Beattie — explained how lawyers help protect and enable the Journal’s high-impact journalism.

We are deeply grateful for their time and generosity in sharing insights—equipping students with the knowledge and perspective they will carry forward as they tackle their own matters at the Clinic.

Categories
News

Clinic’s Heather Murray Takes Part in Sunshine Week Events

(L-R) Paula Knudsen Burke, Zachary Gordon, Hon. Daniel D. Regan, Heather Murray
(L-R) Paula Knudsen Burke, Zachary Gordon, Hon. Daniel D. Regan, Heather Murray

Heather Murray, Associate Director of the Cornell First Amendment Clinic and Managing Attorney of its Local Journalism Project, took part in two Sunshine Week events in Pennsylvania last week. Sunshine Week, held annually in March, is a nationwide observance that emphasizes the importance of open government, public records, and freedom of information. Organized by the Brechner Freedom of Information Project, it gathers journalists, civic groups and citizens to promote government transparency and accountability.

On March 18, the Pennsylvania Center for the First Amendment brought together journalists and lawyers at Penn State for an event called “Sunlight in Happy Valley: Confronting Penn State’s Transparency Gap.” A panel of journalists discussed the difficulties covering the university. During the event, the Pennsylvania NewsMedia Association awarded Terry Mutchler the Advocate of the Year award. Mutchler, chair of Philadelphia-based Obermayer Rebmann Maxwell & Hippel LLP’s Transparency and Public Data Practice, is a former journalist and the first executive director of Pennsylvania’s Office of Open Records.

PNA Director of Government Affairs Jan Murphy (right) presents Terry Mutchler with the 2026 PNA Advocate of the Year award.

Murray, joining a panel of attorneys after the journalists, addressed issues of transparency that have plagued Penn State over the years, as well as the Spotlight PA lawsuit against the university.

On March 19, Murray joined a Right to Know Law panel at Point Park University Center for Media Innovation in Pittsburgh. The event, hosted by the Pennsylvania Bar Association and sponsored by Del Sole Cavanaugh Stroyd LLC, was titled “From Requests to Appeals: A Sunshine Week Right to Know Law Program.” Moderated by Paula Knudsen Burke at the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, the panel also included Judge Daniel D. Regan, Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas, and Zachary Gordon, Del Sole Cavanaugh Stroyd LLC. Panelists discussed the basics of the RTKL and the RTKL appeals process in Allegheny County.

Categories
News

Cornell’s First Amendment Clinic in Tumultuous Times: Ambitious Goals and Ongoing Impact

Clinic Director Mark Jackson (R) and Advisory Board member and Cornell Law School professor Michael Dorf discuss the Clinic during an eCornell Keynote.

In a recent eCornell Keynote, Clinic Director Mark Jackson joins Advisory Board member and Cornell Law School professor Michael Dorf to reflect on the Clinic’s impact, the urgent challenges faced by the Clinic, and the work still ahead.

Watch the full discussion here.

Categories
Free Speech and Impact Litigation News

News Coverage of Clinic’s Lawsuit Protecting First Amendment Rights in New York City

The Clinic’s new First Amendment lawsuit, seeking to establish important legal rights for protestors in New York City’s many “privately owned public spaces,” or POPS, attracted widespread attention. Here is a selection of some of the news coverage:

Suit Argues for Free Speech in Privately Owned Public Spaces, THE CITY

NYC’s Private-Public Spaces Are at Center of Free Speech Fight, Bloomberg Law

Ex-prosecutor Sues Over Arrest While Protesting Law Firm Skadden’s Deal With Trump, Reuters

Ex-Prosecutor Sues After Arrest During Protest of Skadden, Law360

Former Prosecutor ARRESTED After Standing Up to Trump, Legal AF (interview with Clinic’s client)

Categories
Free Speech and Impact Litigation News

After Client Arrested While Protesting Law Firm’s Deal With Trump, Clinic Sues for First Amendment Violation

Retired prosecutor David O’Keefe filed a lawsuit today to vindicate his — and the public’s — First Amendment rights after he was arrested while protesting outside the Midtown headquarters of a law firm that made a deal with the Trump administration.

The lawsuit, filed in the Southern District of New York, names the City of New York, Brookfield Properties, and others as defendants. It seeks to establish important legal rights for New Yorkers in the city’s many “privately owned public spaces,” or POPS.

O’Keefe was standing in a Brookfield-owned POPS when he was arrested on April 2, 2025. He was protesting outside the headquarters of Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP. Days earlier, Skadden had reached a deal with the Trump administration in which the firm promised free legal services in support of initiatives backed by the President. O’Keefe, as a career prosecutor who views the independence of lawyers and the maintenance of the rule of law as critically important, opposed Skadden’s deal.

Skadden is headquartered in One Manhattan West, an office building owned by Brookfield that sits across Ninth Avenue from Moynihan Station. It is bordered by a POPS.

During his protest, O’Keefe stood in the POPS and held a sign that said, “Hey Skadden, I found your spine in the trash lying next to your values!” It described Skadden as “Trump’s $100 million lap dog.” And to put a finer point on his message, he also held a replica human spine.

This POPS is one of dozens of others in the city. Collectively, they constitute more than 3.8 million square feet of public space, the equivalent of nine Bryant Parks.

POPS are created pursuant to an agreement between the property owner and the city. If the owner agrees to include a POPS on its property, the City will allow the owner to construct a larger building than the New York City Zoning Resolution would otherwise permit.

These POPS are open to the public and indistinguishable from public sidewalks, plazas, or parks. They are spaces where commuters walk to work, tourists gather, shoppers stroll — and where people sometimes hold protests.

But New Yorkers may be surprised to learn that, according to the property owners and NYPD, they do not have First Amendment rights when they are in these vast public spaces.
Even though O’Keefe’s protest did not impede the flow of pedestrian travel, did not include sound amplification, and did not violate any rules of the POPS, a security guard working for the property owner told O’Keefe to leave the POPS. O’Keefe refused, prompting security to call NYPD. Officers arrived and told O’Keefe he could not continue his protest in the POPS. When O’Keefe declined to leave or stop his protest, the NYPD officers arrested him.

O’Keefe’s lawsuit seeks to make clear that the public enjoys the same First Amendment rights in POPS as in any other public space. O’Keefe is represented by Michael Linhorst and Daniela del Rosario Wertheimer of the Cornell Law School First Amendment Clinic and civil rights lawyer Gideon Oliver, who has represented people arrested at POPS since Occupy Wall Street.

O’Keefe has continued to protest in the same POPS since his April arrest. He has repeatedly been instructed by security guards to leave and has each time refused. The threat of wrongful government censorship and re-arrest looms every time he ventures out to protest.

“POPS are public spaces. Peaceful protestors should not be silenced just because they choose to protest in one,” O’Keefe said. “This action attempts to hold a major New York City real estate company, Brookfield, to account for its failure to honor the deal and keep public spaces public,” Wertheimer said. “Though building tenants may not like what Mr. O’Keefe has to say, when he says it in a POPS, he is protected by the U.S. and New York State Constitutions. No property owner, security company, or police officer has the power to shut Mr. O’Keefe down for his lawful and peaceful protests.”

The case is O’Keefe v. City of New York et al., no. 1:25-cv-10532.

Contact:

Michael Linhorst

Cornell First Amendment Clinic

MML89@cornell.edu

Categories
News

Safeguarding Democracy by Defending Free Speech and Enabling a Vibrant Press

Mark Jackson, Cornell First Amendment Clinic Director

In a Cornell Law School Forum article, Eileen Korey describes how Clinic Director Mark Jackson’s father, a journalist, inspired his passion for free speech and his dedication to defending local journalism.

Read the full article here.

Categories
Local Journalism Project News

First Amendment Clinic Wins Appeal to Protect Journalist’s Unnamed Sources

The First Amendment Clinic won an important appeal on November 26 that strengthens New York journalists’ ability to protect their anonymous sources and the rest of their newsgathering. The appeals court unanimously held that a subpoena of Joseph Abraham, the former managing editor of the Sullivan County Democrat, had to be quashed because the party that issued the subpoena failed to meet the strict test imposed by the New York Shield Law.

The Shield Law protects journalists against being forced to disclose any unpublished information, including information about an unnamed source, even if the source was not expressly promised confidentiality. The law sets out a stringent test a party must meet before it can enforce a subpoena against the journalist. The test requires the party to show that the information is “highly relevant” to the party’s legal claim, “critical or necessary” to the claim, and not available from any other source. Here, the appeals court held that the party failed to meet that test.

In its ruling last week, the Third Department Appellate Division quoted New York’s highest court to emphasize that the Shield Law “codifies this state’s ‘consistent tradition of providing the broadest possible protection to the sensitive role of gathering and disseminating news of public events.’”

“We are heartened that the Appellate Division reversed the lower court and reaffirmed the strength of the Shield Law,” said Michael Linhorst, the clinic’s local journalism attorney.

Michael Linhorst

“The Shield Law provides critical protection for the free press,” Linhorst said. “Without it, journalists would risk being forced to testify whenever they covered a controversial issue —they would become unpaid investigators for the litigants, taken away from their work of reporting for the public.”

The case is Anthony v. Haas et al., a defamation lawsuit in which neither Abraham nor the Sullivan County Democrat are defendants. The suit relates to an investigation the Town of Highland conducted into Marc Anthony, who was then the town constabulary. The newspaper obtained a copy of the town’s investigation report that had not yet been made public, and it published an article about the investigation that referenced an unnamed source. Anthony later sued a town board member, alleging defamation related to the investigation, and he attempted to subpoena Abraham for documents and testimony about the identity of the newspaper’s source, apparently hoping to show that the defendant provided information to the newspaper.

On behalf of Abraham and the Sullivan County Democrat, the clinic asked the Sullivan County Supreme Court to quash the subpoena. The clinic initially succeeded in quashing it on procedural grounds. Later, the plaintiff re-issued the subpoena, and the Supreme Court denied the clinic’s second motion to quash, concluding that the plaintiff had overcome the Shield Law’s test for overcoming the qualified privilege. As the appeals court recognized, this conclusion was incorrect.

The Appellate Division held that because the plaintiff could obtain the information he wanted from the source who spoke to the newspaper rather than the newspaper itself, “Plaintiff cannot show that the information is unavailable from another source,” and so failed to meet the Shield Law’s three-part test. It also faulted the lower court for failing to make the findings of fact on the record in support of its decision that are required by the Shield Law.

Categories
News

Court Rules in Favor of Clinic Client The Intercept, Allowing Suit Seeking Access to Government Surveillance Records to Proceed

On December 3, 2025, the Superior Court of Arizona, Maricopa County, ruled in favor of the Clinic’s client, The Intercept, denying two Motions to Dismiss. The ruling allows a public records suit seeking access to government surveillance records, brought by the Clinic and co-counsel Zwillinger Wulkan in June 2025, to proceed. News outlet The Intercept brought the special action against Arizona’s Attorney General’s Office (AGO) and the Transaction Record Analysis Center (TRAC), a nonprofit the AGO established in 2014, seeking access to records from a database that houses millions of wire transfers sent between Mexico and U.S. border states.

The complaint alleges that the AGO created TRAC in 2014 to perform a public function and exerted a high degree of control over TRAC in the decade since, and therefore, the records that The Intercept seeks must be released by the AGO and TRAC to fulfill their transparency obligations under the Arizona Public Records Law.

In October 2025, alumnus Alexander Venditti argued on behalf of The Intercept in opposition to the defendants’ Motions to Dismiss. In December 2025, the court denied the Motions to Dismiss. The court ruled that the TRAC Defendants are subject to the Public Records Law as “[t]he allegations clearly raise a reasonable inference that the TRAC Defendants are performing core governmental functions as the AGO direction and its agent.” The court rejected the AGO’s argument that disclosure of the requested records would violate the confidentiality provisions of Arizona’s anti-racketeering statutes, and found that the AGO failed to meet its burden to demonstrate that the State’s interest in withholding outweighed the public’s right to inspection.

Thanks to our co-counsel at Zwillinger Wulkan, alumni Alexander Venditti and Yifei Yang, students Kyland Carreon, Zachary Jacobson, John Lauro, and Danielle Mimeles, and extern Nyssa Kruse for their work on the suit. Read more about the suit in The Intercept here.

Categories
Feature Case on Homepage Local Journalism Project News

PA Court Orders Release of Penn State Trustee Records to Spotlight PA

Cornell First Amendment Clinic student Devin Brader-Araje, J.D. ’26, arguing before a three-judge panel of the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania on September 9, 2025, on behalf of news outlet Spotlight PA.

The Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania has ordered the state Department of Education to release Penn State University Board of Trustees records to investigative news outlet Spotlight PA. Spotlight PA is represented by the Cornell Law School First Amendment Clinic and co-counsel the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press.

The dispute began in May 2023 when Spotlight PA filed open records requests with the Pennsylvania Departments of Education and Agriculture seeking documents the agencies’ secretaries used while serving on Penn State’s governing board.

In the fall of 2023, the Pennsylvania Office of Open Records determined that requested records must be made public under the state Right to Know Law. Penn State and the Department of Education appealed, arguing that they were not subject to the RTKL and did not possess or control the records because the materials were stored on Diligent, a cloud-based file-sharing platform. The agencies further contended that disclosure of unredacted information could harm the university’s finances and employee retention.

The Commonwealth Court rejected Penn State and the Department of Education’s arguments as “without merit,” warning that “[h]olding otherwise would perversely incentivize Commonwealth agencies, local agencies, and affected third parties like Penn State to utilize remote servers and/or cloud-based services, in order to ensure that they would no longer need to disclose what would otherwise constitute public records.” Allowing such a result, the Court said, “would run contrary to the RTKL’s remedial purpose and the General Assembly’s intent that the RTKL be used as a vehicle for increasing and ensuring government transparency.”

“This decision is a major victory for government transparency and accountability,” said Devin Brader-Araje, a Cornell Law School First Amendment Clinic student who argued the case at the Commonwealth Court. “The Court made clear that government officials cannot use technology to hide public information from the public. The ruling reaffirms that Pennsylvania’s Right-to-Know Law will continue to serve its intended purpose of ensuring open access to government records.”

In addition to Brader-Araje, the team that worked on the case included the Clinic’s Associate Director Heather Murray, who manages the Clinic’s Local Journalism Project, RCFP attorney Paula Knudsen Burke, former extern Nyssa Kruse and former student Robert Plafker.

 The Local Journalism Project provides pro bono legal assistance on behalf of news outlets, journalists, researchers and other newsgatherers in aid of their critical function of reporting and communicating important news and information to their communities. The Local Journalism

Project also provides counsel on a range of issues crucial to the operations of community newsrooms.

For coverage of the case, visit the following link: https://www.spotlightpa.org/statecollege/2025/10/penn-state-pennsylvania-commonwealth-court-public-records-penn-state/.

10/20/2025: opinion